• lol @ months ago promising to release the response "over the summer" and, after every trans person rotted into a skeleton from waiting, releasing it on literally the first day of autumn. what you couldn't push it forward 24 hours to stop yourself from lying
  
• ok so their response to the process being "too bureaucratic" is putting the process online. what... what do they think bureaucracy is. do they think it means "literal paper work". It looks like their justification for this is coming from a survey, possibly multiple choice by the sound of it? yeah was there an option for "this entire process is demeaning" or did the government decide not to include that in their survey they made
  
• "is not the top priority for transgender people" yeah that doesn't mean so it's ok if you do loving nothing, Elizabeth
  
• also note that their justification in their consultation response to the consultation comes from this survey they did and not the... the consultation. I haven't gone through the responses yet but, hmmm.
  
• Decreasing waiting times is a good goal, not sure they really needed a years-long terf-baiting consultation to realise that to years is a bad time to wait to even start a process that itself takes years to complete, but it's nice they finally figure this out.
  
• As for how to do it, creating more GICs is not nothing, though it'll depend how well they are funded and staffed and so on. I have heard that a big problem in GICs is getting enough qualified staff, so I'm sure the conservatives' joined-up approach will pay attention to the vital details of this process. Not to mention under-18 transition care is a big issue (currently there are only three GICs seeing under 18s - London, Glasgow and Belfast, and they're at varying levels of overloaded), so will the tories really be keen to do that when the terfs are yelling about the poor children being transed
  
• Also: the institution of the GIC is pretty controversial among trans people. There's a fair bit of variation in how each is run but fundamentally the process is one of having to prove to a medical professional (often not actually a doctor) that you are in fact Really Trans, resulting in a lot of stress for the patient and undermining the relationship between the patient and the professional when you know anything you say might stop you from getting the care you need depending on how read up this random guy is at trans issues. The main alternative proposal, practised in several other countries, is "informed consent", where the only barrier to getting treatment is the patient understanding the risks, which is much easier for a professional to determine than looking into their soul and seeing if their aura is pink, blue or purple
  
• "At the heart of this is the principle of individual liberty. Our philosophy is that a person’s character, your ideas, and your work ethic trumps the colour of your skin or your biological sex." love "work ethic" listed here as the fundamental threshold of worthiness as a person. your worth is your ability to plug into the machine of capitalism, citizen.
  
• ok i have skimmed the executive summary and just lol at this: 64.1% in favour of removing the gender dysphoria requirement, 80.3% for removing the medical report, 78.6% for removing the two-year lived experience, 84.9% against spousal consent, 58.5% for reducing the fee. now which one of these figures was interpreted as the will of the people
  

Angepain fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Sep 22, 2020